The Instigator
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
drzevia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism lacks scientific backing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tylergraham95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 40512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

tylergraham95

Pro

First round is acceptance only.
Second is Construction.
No new arguments may be made in the final round.

Creationism-the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Scientific-based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
drzevia

Con

Some scientists do back creationism, therefore it has recieved scientific backing. It may not be legitimate, but it still counts.
Debate Round No. 1
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

PROS CASE

Framework

"Some scientists do back creationism, therefore it has received scientific backing. It may not be legitimate, but it still counts."

Legitimate- Authentic; genuine(1).


For my opponent to win this argument he may not simply present any scientist that backs creationism. He must provide legitimate evidence, as illegitimate evidence is not genuine, and therefore is not truly applicable to the definition of scientific. If something is not authentic evidence, then it is not characterized by the methods and principles of science, and therefore is not scientific. Just because a scientist says or does something does not make that thing scientific.

For example, here is a Neil deGrasse Tyson quote,
"After the 9/11 attacks, when President George W. Bush, in a speech aimed at distinguishing the U.S. from the Muslim fundamentalists, said, Our God is the God who named the stars. The problem is two-thirds of all the stars that have names, have Arabic names. I don't think he knew this. This would confound the point that he was making."

Dr. Tyson is making commentary on President Bush and showing disapproval, but he did not come to this idea scientifically.


Point 1: No compelling scientific evidence has ever been produced.

No compelling evidence that backs creationism has ever been presented. Well regarded scientists have done studies approved to be scientific and legitimate in nature that have become publicized and regarded as compelling and accurate (example: Richard Dawkins). This, however, has not happened for creationism. All "evidence" that is ever presented in favor of creationism is typically falsified in some way.

"The Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, claims to have evidences of a young earth on display. Careful examination of the main artifacts they claim show a young earth reveal that they are deceptions, and in many cases, not even clever ones.

The rebuttals for this museum are a compilation of articles from various websites. It is important to note that Carl Baugh, the person behind the museum, is at odds with other creation scientists.

In addition, Baugh and his friends, Don Patton and Clifford Burdick, all claim advanced scientific degrees. However, research by Glen Kuban has revealed these degrees are fake. It is beyond me how a Christian can fabricate such degrees with no basis in fact. In short, Creation Evidence Museum, and its main operators, are built upon willful lies by supposed Christians.

2005 Update: Baugh now lists a Doctorate of Theology granted from Louisiana Baptist University. This school is unaccredited, and fits the description of a diploma mill. Thus, more than two decades after claiming his first phony degree, he is still at it."(2)



Point 2: The contrary to creationism, evolution, has been backed by much compelling scientific evidence.


Evolutionary theory was first set forth by Darwin, and since has been improved and refined through time. This is similar to many scientific theories, such as atomic theory. When scientists first discovered atoms, they assumed they were like solid balls, but since then scientists have refined this theory, and we now know that atoms are actually mostly empty space. Evolution has been refined in a similar manner. Every generation of scientists since Darwin have further refined and built upon his original theory as stated in The Origin of Species. Creationism is different in this respect as creationism is static in nature. Creationist theory is usually from folktales, such as Native American creation myths, or from religion (Adam and Eve, etc.). These theories are unscientific because there is no room for change or discovery. Creationism, depending on your religion, happened one way and that way is indisputable. In Christianity, God made Adam and Eve and all the Earths life, and that is the only way it happened (according to creationist theory.)



1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.oldearth.org...
drzevia

Con

drzevia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tylergraham95

Pro

My opponents forfeit is regrettable. I forward all points.
drzevia

Con

drzevia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tylergraham95

Pro

Forward all points.
drzevia

Con

drzevia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Inspired 3 years ago
Inspired
The term creationism refers to the origin of the universe, not necessarily the study of the known world (although observations throughout the known world can be compared to Scripture). Therefore, your argument is not valid. And again, as I feel like a broken record when I say this, the concept of God and creation is a matter of faith and belief, as is evolution. You have to believe that the Big Bang happened, you have to believe God created the world. Since no one was around to see either happen, neither one can be disproved/proved.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
tylergraham95drzeviaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
tylergraham95drzeviaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.